Meta

Part 3: NAS President to JunkScience — Drop dead

After several more e-mail exchanges, NAS President Marcia McNutt has apparently returned to the view that JunkScience should drop dead.

Before reading further, you should already have read Part 1 and Part 2 of “NAS President to JunkScience: Drop Dead.”

After informing McNutt that I had an insider who confirmed what we had suspected all along (i.e., that the NAS review of the EPA human experiments rigged to deliver the EPA-desired outcome), McNutt feigned newbie status at the NAS to try to find out who the insider is:

Not falling for that one, I e-mail back:

Then McNutt seemed to exhibit interest in background facts (vs. “COI” or conflict of interest allegations).

I obliged as follows:

As turns out, McNutt merely asked for the information so she go blow me off:

But she’s not getting away. Here is my response sent this morning:

###

Dr. McNutt,

You have veered back into evasive response and evasion of responsibility territory.

The key fact to keep in mind is that the EPA has officially determined that PM2.5 is essentially the most toxic substance on the planet — any exposure can kill within hours of inhalation, according to EPA.

If that is true, the experiments are fundamentally unethical/illegal under the federal regulations known as the Common Rule — and every other set of rules for protecting human subjects starting with the Nuremberg Code.

I hope we can agree that the government is barred from risking lives for the purpose of advancing its regulatory policy agenda.

The fact that EPA failed to disclose its determination of the risk of near-term death to study subjects merely further compounds extant illegality. In fact, the subjects could not have legally consented to the experiments no matter what disclosure they were given since the experiments were fundamentally unethical/illegal in the first place.

None of this is rocket science. It’s just plain logic based on the plain words and actions of the EPA.

Your comment, “Today many people are alive because of the many volunteers who allowed human testing so that scientists could understand what is safe and what works” is a complete misunderstanding of the applicable facts, laws and history.

The EPA experiments are not therapeutic in nature — so nothing more than “minimal risk” is allowed. Risk of death within hours is not “minimal risk.” The Luftwaffe hoped to save many pilots via its inhuman experiments on Dachau prisoners. So that line of reasoning is a total fail.

There is no evidence in the NAS committee report that any part of our testimony was considered in the slightest.

You “don’t see anything here that is alarming” because you just want to sweep the entire matter under the rug.

I reiterate my request that you conduct a bon fide and transparent investigation of this matter.